What is it in matter that changes as the matter's speed approaches light speed?

Please, no scientific jargon, just a straight foward answer, that is all i ask, thank you.

Well According to DanielW who i am willing to believe as he has no doubt read all of the book he referenced earlier not quite as much as i envisaged in my last post i had thought the increase in mass that is seen as an object approaches lights velocity would be objective not dependent upon the observer but is seems i was wrong, so the only thing that i can think of that changes in matter is the wavelength of the photons emitted and absorbed constantly by any matter above zero kelvin and those would depend on both the observer and the direction each photon was going to/coming from.

Mind you i still suspect you would collapse into degenerate matter from the constant collisions with the odd Hydrogen atoms that you would meet during your journey at those velocities.

edited to add:-And of course the major change in matter at those velocities is that the matters perception of time changes in relation to other matter going at other velocities.

_________________Someone has to tilt at windmills.So that we know what to do when the real giants come!!!!

Well According to DanielW who i am willing to believe as he has no doubt read all of the book he referenced earlier not quite as much as i envisaged in my last post i had thought the increase in mass that is seen as an object approaches lights velocity would be objective not dependent upon the observer but is seems i was wrong, so the only thing that i can think of that changes in matter is the wavelength of the photons emitted and absorbed constantly by any matter above zero kelvin and those would depend on both the observer and the direction each photon was going to/coming from.

Mind you i still suspect you would collapse into degenerate matter from the constant collisions with the odd Hydrogen atoms that you would meet during your journey at those velocities.

edited to add:-And of course the major change in matter at those velocities is that the matters perception of time changes in relation to other matter going at other velocities.

------

(The question was; What is it in matter that changes as the matter's speed approaches light speed?)

Is that a straight forward sensible answer? I have never had a straight forward answer to light speed travel questions and people I think have never had a straight forward sensible answer either. And it’s not because it advance or technical science. Science and technology can be given in examples and simple terms, even basically. I think the reason why these answer sounds like nonsense is because they are nonsense. They are trying to bend the universe to fit a theory that is not completely true. And students go to universities and learn this nonsense and repeat it.

(A) Many persons say it is the mass of matter that increases as it approaches light speed. But the way I understand it, it is the momentum force of the matter that increases not its mass. How would the mass increase, wouldn’t you have to physically add more matter to an object to increase it’s mass?

(B) Lets say it’s the wave length of the matter that increases. How significant would this be?

(C) You mean with all you guys scientific and technological knowledge we will not be able to make some short of shield that could deal adequately with the rare collision with hydrogen atoms at very very high speed, if this is an actual problem. Really!

(D) What actually causes this major change in matter “And of course the major change in matter at those velocities is that the matters perception of time changes in relation to other matter going at other velocities“, and how does this actually occur, does the matter change in amount, in type, what? I think you are right about the perception of time relative to distant objects moving at different velocities but, how does this actually change the matter itself? I would think though that even then the matter of which the objects consist would still remain the same.

I think scientists, many technologists and students are creating none sense ideas in order to understand the universe through Albert Einstein’s theory. Don’t get me wrong I do think a lot of his theory is true but wouldn’t someone really be a god if all their theory turns out to be true. Was Albert Einstein a god?

Most objects you touch are 99% vacuum. They feel solid, but they're not really there.

Theres also fun facts like Muons.

wikipedia wrote:

When a cosmic ray proton impacts atomic nuclei of air atoms in the upper atmosphere, pions are created. These decay within a relatively short distance (meters) into muons (the pion's preferred decay product), and neutrinos. The muons from these high energy cosmic rays, generally continuing essentially in the same direction as the original proton, do so at very high velocities.

Although their lifetime without relativistic effects would allow a half-survival distance of only about 0.66 km at most, the time dilation effect of special relativity allows cosmic ray secondary muons to survive the flight to the earth's surface.

What is it in matter that changes as the matter's speed approaches light speed?

Please, no scientific jargon, just a straight foward answer, that is all i ask, thank you.

Your question doesn't make any sense. The matter doesn't have to magically transform like you are assuming it does.

That's all the time I'm spending on explaining it to you. A lot of people have put a lot of effort into teaching you basic Newtonian physics, but you ignored their efforts and called them ignorant. And now you expect those people to try to help you understand Einsteinian physics.

hat's all the time I'm spending on explaining it to you. A lot of people have put a lot of effort into teaching you basic Newtonian physics, but you ignored their efforts and called them ignorant. And now you expect those people to try to help you understand Einsteinian physics.

He's right on this one, inventor.

inventor wrote:

Is that a straight forward sensible answer?

much like Ensteinian Physics, it's all relative to your point of view.

but in all seriousness, things like accelleration to or even near the speed of light is far more difficult than you're thinking it is.

inventor wrote:

I think scientists, many technologists and students are creating none sense ideas in order to understand the universe through Albert Einstein’s theory.

well, so far, his theories have painted the most accurate picture of how things work in reality. and if it works, then why not work with it? There are many in the scientific field who do not think Einstein was 100% correct, but I'm sure most will say that he got a lot right. Just because you don't like what someone has to say, it doesnt make it wrong.

Who knows maybe someone, someday will find out that he was wrong. but that day has yet to come.Protions of quantum mechanics (as I've come to understand, someone correct me if this is wrong) are about the only things that don't always fit with Einsteins theories. But that is a field that is constantly changing, constantly evolving.

inventor wrote:

(C) You mean with all you guys scientific and technological knowledge we will not be able to make some short of shield that could deal adequately with the rare collision with hydrogen atoms at very very high speed, if this is an actual problem. Really!

not use google much? or read? or watch science shows on tv? people have been working on those kinds of things for a long while now. but there are major obsticals in the way of developing things like that. 1) funding.... always a major issue, 2) materials, 3)power requirements, 4)end goal, why do it if no one can use it?, 5) I like listing things too, sometimes more than i should lol

Don't be like another forumite (whose name shall be unmentioned) who refused to listen to those who know what they are talking about. not saying that I do, not with everything, but occasionally i get things right there are alot of people in this forum who do, though, and who have had alot of patience up to this point.

There are many in the scientific field who do not think Einstein was 100% correct, but I'm sure most will say that he got a lot right. Just because you don't like what someone has to say, it doesnt make it wrong.

That is true of general relativity. Special relativity, that we have been discussing here, is known to be complete by one and all. The difference is where things are happening. Special relativity requires a "flat" space-time. This is what most of the universe consists of on local scales. General relativity is needed to explain the effects near massive bodies or over large scales, where space time is curved.

General Relativity:=> Excellent results for a curved manifold but not known to be complete.

Quote:

Is that a straight forward sensible answer?

The first two are easy to demonstrate and understand. I am still working (not vigorously) on the last. Putting your fingers in your ears and humming, does not make them unsensible. They don't give the answers I want to hear either, but I believe them because I gain nothing from wishful thinking inc this case.

That is true of general relativity. Special relativity, that we have been discussing here, is known to be complete by one and all. The difference is where things are happening. Special relativity requires a "flat" space-time. This is what most of the universe consists of on local scales. General relativity is needed to explain the effects near massive bodies or over large scales, where space time is curved.

General Relativity:=> Excellent results for a curved manifold but not known to be complete.

aaahhhhhh, ok. I remember hearing there being a difference between Special and Gerenal relativity in the past, but i never gotmuch into it, nor realized the distinction with regards to what's been going on here...lol

learn something new everyday, and this is one of the first for me (today, anyways )

You guys are always talking about teaching me, I should learn from what you say, you have been teaching me but I am not learning.

You are saying things that colleges and universities teach. I am familiar with what they say but I am a renegade because I question what they taught me and that is why what I say is different from what you say. I don’t just accept everything they say, especially when it sounds like nonsense and contradict my observations, experiences and theories.

They say that matter changes as its velocity becomes very very high. I say why should the velocity of a piece of matter although extremely high change that matter? They give no sensible or straight forward answer as they usually do only scientific jargon as you have been giving. Ask a physicist, a professor, NASA see what they tell you.

The following is an example from a previous post.

“I would like to examine light speed travel and the AEMIE (advance electromagnetic motion induction engine). I know everyone is going to jump on me but just listen to me a little and see if I make sense, sense not science.

One of the ideas here is that a light speed engine is not necessary for light speed travel.

It’s important to note that a spacecraft is not like a particle of light ejected from a star traveling at light speed for thousands of light years. A spacecraft has the ability to increase its speed because it has an engine, a particle of light remains at the speed at which it was ejected from the light source.

We know that an object in space will continue in motion once it is put in motion.

For instance, a space car is stationary in space with an engine of a specific power. The engine is turned on for 2 minutes and then turned off; the vehicle is now at a speed of 100 miles an hour. We know this vehicle would continue at this speed of 100 mph indefinitely unless it is acted upon by another force.

If the space car’s engine is turned on again after 1 minute for the same 2 minutes period with the same amount of engine force as before and then turned off; the vehicle would be at 200mph.

So speed is being added to speed, the speed of the vehicle is increasing although the speed and force of the engine is constant. And not only that, if the engine is turned off and left off the vehicle would remain indefinitely at 200mph.

If we agree that the above situation is practical, sensible and true is it not reasonable common sense to think that if the above vehicle’s engine continues to be turned on and off for some time the point will be reached when the vehicle is at light speed? This continued moderate acceleration will bring the vehicle up to light speed and not only that but beyond light speed”.

My conclusion is that matter does not change even at ten thousand times the speed of light and it does not progressively require more energy to propel it as it approaches light speed either. If this is true which I think it is light speed travel would be possible and very easy to occur. I see no reason to believe that this is not true and that is my point of view and I have the courage to stand up to any ridicule for the things I think are true.

In time you will see that I was right. Getting a spacecraft up to and beyond the speed of light is not difficult. It is the theory that makes it difficult because the theory is inaccurate.

How must technological advancement occur if we are so narrow minded as to be unwilling to consider any other point of view even though it makes sense. Laws and theories are important but we must change the law or modify the theory where necessary, even redo the experiments, because technological innovation and advancement can be inhibited by the observation of laws and theories that are not completely true or accurate.

What Idiom said. Putting it another way, the main strategy of particle accelerator experiments is to get particles to higher and higher kinetic energies, but however much energy particles are given, they never quite reach light speed.

And I am pretty sure they have tried switching it off and switching it on again.

That is an observation, not theory, Mr Inventor. After decades of science fiction writers playing with words to sidestep this fact, we are still stuck with it in the real world.

You guys are always talking about teaching me, I should learn from what you say, you have been teaching me but I am not learning.

You are saying things that colleges and universities teach. I am familiar with what they say but I am a renegade because I question what they taught me and that is why what I say is different from what you say. I don’t just accept everything they say, especially when it sounds like nonsense and contradict my observations, experiences and theories.

I don't accept everything that's told to me either. But I listen to it and through math, reason and experiment I have found that all the things that science teaches can be proven to be true via the scientific method.

When it comes to being a scientist or engineer, being a renegade is fine, being skeptical is a requirement. But ignoring 1000s of years of advances and starting from scratch means you might as well have been born in the stone age, and you'll make about as much progress as an average stone age hominid. Issac Newton is probably the greatest scientist that ever lived, and in one of his papers he wrote "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants".

Current scientific theories are not incorrect, although many of them are probably incomplete. When a new discovery is made it usually doesn't shatter older theories, it just adds more detail to the bigger picture of science. Until recently science didn't think that life could exist at above 373K, and then they found those colonies around the hydrothermal vents. This refined biological understanding, but whales didn't suddenly start flying and birds didn't suddenly start absorbing oxygen through their feathers. That's the kind of paradigm shift you are suggesting with your plan to break all the laws of physics.

inventor wrote:

They say that matter changes as its velocity becomes very very high.

No they don't. You said that they say it. What they actually said is that its mass increases. You're not listening and you're only hearing what you want to hear.

inventor wrote:

I say why should the velocity of a piece of matter although extremely high change that matter?

The velocity doesn't change the matter, it changes the energy of the matter. All velocity is relative. There is no fixed point in the universe which everythings velocity can be measured against.

inventor wrote:

They give no sensible or straight forward answer as they usually do only scientific jargon as you have been giving. Ask a physicist, a professor, NASA see what they tell you.

Until you have understood the basic laws of thermodynamics, you're really not ready to advance to relativity. There are good reasons why these things are taught to children is a certain sequence. It's like trying to calculate a cube root before you can add and subtract. You can't understand E=mc^2 until you understand energy in all it's forms. You especially need to understand kinetic energy, how it is calculated, how it can be transferred from one object to another. Understanding kinetic energy also requires that you understand the basics of other forms of energy and the law of conservation of energy/mass. As long as you reject these, nobody can help you to understand relativity, and the beauty of E=mc^2. Even then it's not going to be easy, there is no simple answer. It requires hard work and a lot of thinking to understand it. It took me years to grasp the concept. You've a lot of work to do.

We have a lot of people trying to get things up to or past the speed of light.

If I have a particle in a partical accelerator going very close to the speed of light, why doesn't it go much faster when I give it a push? At the beginning it seemed very easy to make it go faster...

xiphius wrote:

What Idiom said. Putting it another way, the main strategy of particle accelerator experiments is to get particles to higher and higher kinetic energies, but however much energy particles are given, they never quite reach light speed.

And I am pretty sure they have tried switching it off and switching it on again.

That is an observation, not theory, Mr Inventor. After decades of science fiction writers playing with words to sidestep this fact, we are still stuck with it in the real world.

It is difficult if not impossible to measure the speed of or propel a particle of matter when the measuring equipment or particle accelerator is functioning at that same speed as the particle. It does not surprise me that it would be difficult. You are using a measuring tool, a particle accelerator, devices, eye sight, brain and perception that is functioning at light speed, it must be difficult. However, faster than light speed particle acceleration I think is still possible but I think it’s dependent on the technique of acceleration.

I do think the speed of light is an ultimate speed but not the ultimate speed. I think the speed of light is an atomic speed. I think matter is created from energy and this energy is set in the structure of the atom, if the atom is disintegrated the particle comes flying out at this set speed and energy. So I do think the speed of light is a set atomic particle speed. I think that a mass of atoms clump together like a ball, like a car, whatever has different speed ability than an atomic particle. And this is where I differ from saying that the speed of light is the ultimate speed for every thing. I think a clump of matter can go slower than light speed or faster than light speed depending on the technique use for propulsion.